Remix.run Logo
dsign a day ago

> Audiovisual entertainment is already beyond capacity. We make more stuff than people have the time to consume it.

No we don't. I rarely find anything that I like in Netflix, Amazon Prime or HBO. Those services are stuffed with brain bleach that I don't even find entertaining. There are "gold nuggets"[^1] I have enjoyed in those sites, but it's like one or two per year. The rest of my watching time goes to videos of people camping in the wilderness, for lack of a better thing.

[^1]: As in, they are entertaining. Rarely, they are imaginative. Even more seldom, they are educational or contribute to my personal growth.

kranke155 a day ago | parent [-]

Yes we do.

You don’t get it. Those programs are made because they make money. Netflix is profitable because it makes shows that X number of people want to see.

The number of people like yourself who are underserved by stuff to watch is too low to be profitable - or they don’t know how to make a show that would appeal to this group yet.

The dark truth about TV is that it’s what people want to watch. There is no conspiracy. Here is a good Steve Jobs quote on the subject:

“ When you’re young, you look at television and think, There’s a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that’s not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That’s a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It’s the truth.”

Anyway assuming that an industry screwed up because you personally don’t like their product is pretty incredible. No they didnt screw up. They’re just serving people who aren’t quite like yourself.

dsign a day ago | parent | next [-]

And? Two things can be true at the same time. Deadpool Wolverine was 300 million USD to produce. Nobody is going to put that amount of money into producing content for a corner wacko like myself, or Steve Jobs, whom, by your quote, apparently had the same problem (and 300 million USD to spare). But if it can be produced at a fraction of the price, then there is a market. And that's exactly my point.

kranke155 a day ago | parent [-]

What kind of content could you want that’s not on YouTube today?

lolinder a day ago | parent [-]

A few examples:

* Slow, thoughtful, hard sci-fi that's well-written and well acted, with immersive (not campy) sets and effects. Enough of that to fill an evening a week.

* A spiritual successor to Firefly with the same production requirements and release schedule described above.

Even YouTube is bound by the same limitations as the AAA streaming platforms are—you can't sink money into something that's too niche, and right now doing things well costs buckets of money. So I'm sure there are a few fan films on YouTube adjacent to my interests, but their production value is going to be far below what it could be if things were made cheaper.

kranke155 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah afaik Firefly didn't make money even back then. In 2-10 years the tech might be there for this, but it's not there yet.

If you're looking for hard sci fi I really recommend Andor.

lolinder 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Yep, I've watched Andor—it's great sci-fi, but not hard sci-fi.

smegger001 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Just because they make money from one nich doesn't mean they will appeal to another

kranke155 a day ago | parent [-]

They have limited amount of resources and people have limited time capacity.

They make the most profitable content they can think of.